Proposal G does support the spit use case when the nested assertions are not used to further qualify the use of Addressing.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Illsley [mailto:david.illsley@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Anish Karmarkar
Cc: Marc Goodner; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Alternative G to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata
I know I've missed the last call... but unless it was in that one? I don't
remember dropping the split response usecase... and the e-mail from Tom on
March 23rd suggests he thinks the former interpretation provides support
for it.
David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.compublic-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 04/02/2007 09:05:31 PM:
>
> I didn't quite see it that way. Our nested assertions are not crafted to
> supported the split usecase. Some time ago we decided against the split
> usecase. If we change our mind, we need to provide explicit support for
> that. The current proposal G regardless of the interpretation of what it
> means to not have a nested assertion does not support the split usecase.
>
> IIRC, Dave Hull had sent a proposal to support the split usecase.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU